The evil "for profit" institution

Could someone please explain why "for profit" institutions are not looked upon favorably? I see negative comments every now and then that imply for-profit schools are a bad thing – or at least not very desirable. Why?

 

It is really more of a concern that the for-profits will take a more corporate attitude and can sacrifice educational quality for the bottom line. For example, they could do away with or provide substandard funding to a potential nonprofitable humanities program and use the funds to support more profitable ventures. For-profits are also in the minority in higher ed. and there are successes such as the Univ. of Phoenix. I am not against for-profit institutions but do agree that there is a legitimate concern here that must be watched out for. If they are RA and the program is one that meets a students educational, financial, and professional needs I wouldn't choose against it.

John

 

At a school when profits become an over riding goal it can lead to cutting corners that can severely degrade the quality of education. Typically the first and most obvious thing is teacher to student ratio. For example, I've heard that there's a DETC accredited school with the ratio of about 1000 students to each instructor.

 

Sounds like my daughter's first 5 out of 10 undergraduate classes at Penn State University - 600 to 1200 students in a class with one instructor.

 

Oops, sorry about the empty post.

I took a number of lower division classes like that in the University of California system. But they always had a third of the intruction with very small classes like 15 to 20 students so that individual questions could be easily addressed. I doubt that Penn State's overall ratio is 600 to 1200 students per instructor.

Please note that I'm not trying to argue that schools for profit are inherently bad/evil. I'm just trying to address what I thought was your question.

 

I made a post on the 'Sarasota' thread yesterday giving some ideas on that. But here's a few more:

1. History (macro scale). Advanced education in the Western world has traditionally been an aristocratic or ecclesiastical pursuit. Until the early 19th century, England only had two universities, which were emphatically not intended for everyone. Until the 20th century, university education was often built around a core of Greek and Latin classics. Theology remained the queen of the sciences for centuries. Even today universities specializing in applied subjects like business or agriculture have much lower academic prestige than those concentrating in the pure sciences and the arts. Universities are still expected to be lotus blossoms, floating above the worldly concerns of the flesh with their eyes on the higher things of the spirit.

2. History (micro scale). In the United States, most universities founded in the past 200 years were state run or private non-profit (often church related). They include all the prestigious names. The proprietary schools traditionally were the trade and vocational schools. Now the latter are moving upscale and are offering degrees. But they can't shake their proletarian origins that easily (think 'DeVry'), while the academically strongest (and toniest) names remain the non-profits simply because that's how American higher education developed.

3. Academic politics. Face it, most university professors are leftists. Proprietary schools embrace the market, and university professors, as an occupational group, distrust the market. They much prefer social resources to be taken by taxation and distributed from above by experts (like them).

Bottom line: While I think that there are legitimate arguments against proprietary schools, I think that much of the opposition to them among the academic community is cultural.

 

Frankly, I think that much of the debate about for-profit schools focuses on the "less-than-wonderful" ones... but the potential for bad things is certainly there even in the regionally accredited schools.

IIRR, someone posted some time back about a professor at U of Phoenix who wanted to fail several students in his class for doing little/shoddy/substandard coursework. The higher ups reportedly changed his failing grades to passing ones to avoid pissing off the corporate customer from whom the students came. If true, this is a pretty serious reason why the for-profit model has problems... although it could just as easily exist in the nonprofit school sector as well.

I must also say that a well-run for-profit institution can be far more cost efficient, thereby delivering as high or higher quality education at lower cost. When I was at Oberlin, the amount of cash wasted due to academic arrogance and a system that simply didn't *care* about cost containment was astonishing. As in, probably millions of dollars wasted. There, the problem is that the people making the decisions are all academics, without any significant business experience... and that is a common problem at all nonprofits.

SO I don't necessarily think that a for-profit school is inherently bad, only that one must, ideally, have a combination of academic experience/integrity and knowledge of efficient business practices.

 

Bob - I think there are several reasons why "for profits" colleges appear to be evil.

One reason for concern about "for profits" comes from the track record of those in place now. For example, I don't believe you'll see a single "for profit" that is well regarded in any of the ranking lists (U.S. News, etc.).

While the "for profits" graduate students with the same letters after their name (be it MBA, BS, etc.) as the non-profits, there can be wide variations in quality. RA helps - but only ensures that the "for profit" is minimally competent, not excellent. Don't be fooled - there is a huge difference between a Harvard MBA and a "for profit" DE MBA. The letters are the same, the experience is vastly different.

What about research? For profits almost never sponsor academic research. Although this may esoteric by some, research is a key ingredient in keeping a faculty up to date and fresh.

What about entrance standards? For profits are driven to admit as many students as they can. Many of the "for profits" talked about in this forum are essentially "open admission", even at the graduate level. If you have money (or at least good credit!) you're in! Good traditional schools set higher standards and turn down weak applicants.

Thanks - Andy

 

Dear Bill,

Greetings!

I totally agree with you on this one. Cultural reasons play the principal role for this view of proprietary schools in the United States (and perhaps in other parts of the world). By sharp contrast, in Latin America, for example, proprietary schools have a much better prestige than public schools.

My best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Chip wrote

Two thoughts on this topic -
Why would a company even *want* to keep footing the bill for substandard work?

Why would a university risk tarnishing its reputation by changing failing grades to passing ones?

If I were in an executive position at either the corporation or the university, I would argue for the failing grades. The corporation could use this as a [fairly] inexpensive screening tool or an indicator that the employee is not destined for bigger and better things. The university could use this as a quality control mechanism for their DE/DL programs.

In the business world, we often hear talk about the bottom line, and we sometimes hear the phrase damage control. Well, I suggest that a university can risk losing the business of a corporate sponsor (the tuition payer)in lieu of losing other students if they (the university) acquire a reputation of providing "no-fail" education.

Besides, Phoenix (or any other school) should watch out for the tenacious bulldogs in this forum - those that bite them in the butt or keep nipping at their heels. Before one of you bulldogs jump on this last statement, I am a firm believer in devil's advocates and in watch dogs.

Bill Hurd (Run with the big dogs or stay on the porch)

 

A thought on this point:

"Why would a university risk tarnishing its reputation by changing failing grades to passing ones?"

The belief that they would stems from several mis apprehensions about how businesses, and educational businesses in particular work.

1. The university is not in the business of selling just knowledge. What the university (especially an institution like UoP that targets adult learners) is selling is "certified" knowledge. Knowledge that can be
easily verified by employers, etc. Given that, mosdt for profit concerns in any field have realized over the last several decades that short term sacrifice of long term quality leads to disaster. Since the for profit institutions are less insulated from this effect than the traditional, they must keep it more in mind. It operates at the non-profit institution as well. What is the motivation that keeps Harvard or University of Michigan, or any non-profit from changing the grade of the child of the rich benefactor? Must be the same, the desire not to "pee in the soup".

2. Most "corporate sponsership" is by reimbursement to the employee after course completion. Often, the percentage of reimbursement depends on the grade, and essentially always depends on satisfactory completion. A failing grade would never even be seen by the crporation, and the university has already been paid. Why would they care (or ever even know) what the corporation thinks?

Disclosure Statement: I received a BA in Management from University of Phoenix in 1995, and am therefore concerned with the reputation of their degrees. Also, the work was partially corporatye sponsered, and MY employer certainly wasn't going to argue with THEM if my work wasn't up to snuff. I expect my manager would have had a few choice words with me in his office with the door shut.

Geoff Withnell

 

I have two general concerns about for-profit institutions.

First, if the Univ. of Phoenix model is any indication, the notion of academic freedom for the instructor may be thrown out the window. Now, I realize that for some student who simply is trying to acquire some knowledge and/or obtain a credential, "academic freedom" may sound like an ivory tower concept. But I think there is something very important about allowing an instructor a reasonable and responsible amount of freedom in determining what to cover and how to do so. UOP's model provides little room for that, as is made clear in UOP founder John Sperling's book, For-Profit Higher Education, despite his protestations to the contrary.

Second -- and I confess the track record may not be clear yet -- it seems probable that for-profit institutions are more likely to quickly pull the plug on unprofitable degree programs, thus leaving enrolled students out at sea. If we're talking about a DETC school, it may be difficult/impossible for orphaned students to transfer already earned credits. In a classic marketing sense, I can see for-profit institutions starting off with a large menu of offerings, then cutting out those that don't "sell."

. . . As for the "failing grades" discussion, that occurs everywhere, at every level of higher ed. Schools from the Ivy League to community colleges wrestle with that, perhaps for different reasons, but the bottom line is that politics enters the fray in this realm too.

 

"Academic Freedom" is all well and good. However, I the ivory tower it may well come at the expense of the student. The school which is supported by student dollars (and I include when the employer is paying, if the student wasn't creating enough wealth for the employer to pay, it wouldn't) must provide the product which is being purchased. If the instructor doesn't want to cover something, well, tough. That's what he/she is being paid to do cover the expected material. Outside of academia, delivering a uniform product to a given standard is called good quality control.

Geoff Withnell

 

I think the point you're missing is that the instructor may be in as good a position as anyone to determine what is appropriate subject matter to cover. "Uniform product" may be fine for car parts, but in terms of services (including education), a singular, unyielding notion of what the "product" should be isn't necessarily the best approach.

 

I believe the operative word is "may" as in, may be in a good a position to determine what is appropriate subject matter to cover.

 

Since Univ of Phoenix (UoP) was brought up. I'm going to add my 2 cents to it. I've found through talking to most school officials that they look down on the U of P. This is very disheartening to me because I'm now taking classes with them to earn a BA. Like today, I told my academic advisor at U of P that I want to take some classes from a community college (via DL) and get them transferred in for it's cheaper for me to do so. These are basic Business Admin classes like Accounting I, II, Microecon, Macroecon, Stats I, Stats II. These classes are foundation classes taught throughout the U.S. with pretty much the same curriculum. But my U of P advisor says that if I wanted to transfer them in, I would have to give them a course description of those classes from the comm colleges I intend to attend. So, I talk to one of the comm colleges today and the guy was kind enough to send me a thorough course outline and description and he asked me why I needed them and I told them because U of P says that the U of P classes are different from those taught elsewhere. He became very cynical about U of P and said that of all places, U of P should accept the transfer since all the other state run colleges accept the transfer of these classes. I asked him why "of all places U of P..." and he went on being cynical about U of P and stated that he didn't know if they were accredited and that they were private and on and on. Most of all, he obviously looked down on U of P.

Can anyone else who has attended U of P tell me if they've experienced the same treatment from other schools?

I know that non-profit schools look down on for-profit schools. I love learning and enjoy classes but I really can't stand the academic world's politics. It's always a matter of who is better than the other.

Thanks.

 

Matt:

I got my degree from UoP, as I stated in an early post. I have taken several classes since, some at the graduate level, and some from a local community college. Nobody has (as far as I can tell) looked down on my degree. The graduate courses were from state supported public universities. As far as wanting the course descriptions I think UoP would be remiss if they didn't get the them. How would they know I you had gotten everything they expect? The public schools don't need them because they usually already have agreements in place to accept course A as equivalent to course B. The main rap on UoP is cost. Yes they are expensive. I think, looking back on it 5 years later, that I got my money's worth.

 

UCI is an evil for profit institution, even though it is regionally accredited. It's still a degree mill!

------------------
Sam C
UCI 2002

 

Thanks for the reply and it's good to know that you went to U of P.

Yes they are expensive. They're geared for folks whose companies reimburse them for tuition.

As for the courses, those are basic classes that all BA in Bus Admin people take. U of P's is no less or more advanced than the courses offered elsewhere. Accounting I is accounting 101 and doesn't matter where it's taken, the course curriculum covers the same thing. Yes of course they should request for the course descriptions but that's not really the issue. The issue is the enrollment counselors at U of P is hung up on the U of P class numbering system. I tell them that while classes like Accounting I may be in the 300 series (i.e. 3xx) to them, it is not labeled the same at other schools. Like for example, there's a 4-year college nearby here that labels all its bachelor classes in the 100 series and its master's in the 200 series. My exasperation with U of P's counselors comes from their inability to understand this. So I told them to look up the CAN (CA Articulation Number). CAN's system is unbiased and it lays it out straight. U of P, being a for profit school of course doesn't like it when classes are taken elsewhere because they make less money.

It's good to know that no one has looked down on your U of P degree. I guess I keep bumping into folks who do look down at U of P. U of P's aggressive marketing campaign has both helped and hurt it. Helped in that it reaches many people, hence enrollment goes up. Hurt in that the impression it gives out is that it's a "fly-by-night" school. Many people think U of P is unaccredited and when I tell them that it's RA, they don't actually even go back to correcting themselves for their initial remarks.